Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 635 (RAJ)

Kailash Chand v. Ram Prasad

2012-03-13

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2012
BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 30th June, 2005, whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa dismissed the claim petition no. 798/2004 filed by appellant Kailash Chand against the respondents 2. Adumbrated in brief, the facts of the case are that on 22nd May, 2001 appellant injured Kailash was going from Nangal Rajawatan to village Manpuriya by Jeep bearing registration no. RJ 29 P 0411. The appellant himself was driving the jeep. It is alleged that the appellant drove the jeep rashly and negligently and despite there being many warnings from the passenger, he continued to drive the jeep at a fast speed and finally collided with a camel cart, which resulted into the injuries having sustained by the passengers sitting inside the Jeep. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the judgment, it is revealed that earlier the Jeep No. RJ 29 P 0411 entailed in the accident was registered in the name of Bhagwan Sahai and before this accident took place, the same was sold to the injured appellant Kailash Chand. The Tribunal having considered this fact observed that since the injured Kailash was himself the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 29 P 0411, hence he was not entitled to claim any compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that albeit this vehicle was sold by Bhagwan Sahai to the injured Kailash Chand, but it was not transferred in his name before the accident took place. It was still continuing registered in the name of Bhagwan Sahai only. Learned counsel further contended that the Apex Court in the case of Pushpa @ Leela and others vs. Shakuntala and others delivered in civil Appeal No. 6924 of 2005 = 2011(1) CCR 1 (SC) observed that notwithstanding sale of vehicle neither transferor nor transferee took any step for change of name of owner in certificate of registration of vehicle. In view of such omission transferor was deemed to continue as owner of vehicle for purposes of the Act, even though under civil law he ceased to be its owner after its sale. Transferor, whose name continued in records of registering authority as owner of truck was equally liable for payment of compensation amount. In view of such omission transferor was deemed to continue as owner of vehicle for purposes of the Act, even though under civil law he ceased to be its owner after its sale. Transferor, whose name continued in records of registering authority as owner of truck was equally liable for payment of compensation amount. Further, since an insurance policy in respect of truck was taken out in his name he was indemnified and therefore claim would be shifted to insurer. Compensation amount was equally realisable from respondent no.3, insurer. 5. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal is found to have erringly dismissed the claim petition and the matter can be remanded to the Tribunal for adjudicating the claim petition afresh in the light of the above judgment of the Supreme court. 6. Learned counsel appearing fot the respondent United India Insurance company does not object to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. It is relevant to record that the question of liability has to be examined by the Tribunal of the recorded owner of the vehicle under different provisions of the MV Act. 8. Section 2(3)) of the Act defines “owner” in the following manner: 2(30) “owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement; (Emphasis supplied) 9. The Apex court is found to have discussed so many judgments while pronouncing the verdict in the case of Pushpa @ Leela and others (supra) and arrived at the following inescapable conclusion: “On the basis of these decisions, the inescapable conclusion is that Jitender Gupta, whose name continued in the records of the registering authority as the owner of the truck was equally liable for payment of the compensation amount. Further, since an insurance policy in respect of the truck was taken out in his name he was indemnified and the claim will be shifted to the insurer, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.” 10. Further, since an insurance policy in respect of the truck was taken out in his name he was indemnified and the claim will be shifted to the insurer, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.” 10. In the light of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Apex Court, I deem just and proper to remit the case to the Tribunal for the decision of the claim petition afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties in accordance with the provisions of law. 11. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 30th June, 2005 to the extent of claim petition no. 798/2004 filed by Kailash Chand, which was dismissed by the Tribunal stands set-aside and the matter is remitted to the MACT, Dausa with the direction that the Tribunal shall decide the claim petition no. 798/2004 afresh in the light of the judgment of Pushpa @ Leela and others (supra), after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties in accordance with law. 12. Learned counsel for the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 26th March, 2012. The Tribunal is also directed to decide the claim petition within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment as the accident of the instant case is related to the year 2001.